DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/34s442ws Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 6(2) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Appel, Sharon Publication Date 1999 DOI 10.5070/LR862026984 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers Sharon Appel* "[W]hile I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copy-right, one must not put manacles upon science." Lord Ellenborough, Carey v. Kearsley, 4 Esp. 168, 170, 170 Eng.Rep. 679, 681 (K.B.1803) I. IN TR O DU CTIO N .......................................................................... 151 II.THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT ......................................................... 154 A. Historical Origins of Copyright Law ................................. 154 B. Constitutional and Philosophical Underpinnings of C opyright Law ................................................................... 157 C. The Copyright Act of 1790 ................................................. 158 D. The Copyright Act of 1909 ................................................ 159 E. The Copyright Act of 1976 ................................................. 161 1. Threshold Requirements for Copyright Protection. 162 B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison; J.D. Brooklyn Law School; Certificate, Graduate Program in Museum Studies, George Washington University. Former staff attorney and hearing officer, Telecommunications, Vermont Public Service Board. E-mail: [email protected]. Many thanks to Ralph Oman for his encouragement, enthusiasm, and advice. Thanks also to Jeffrey Hannigan, Ildiko P. DeAngelis, and Ellen Zavian for their comments upon earlier drafts, and to Craig Rutenberg for his flexibility and humor. I dedicate this article to my parents, Rose and Carl Appel. UCLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol 6:2 2. D uration ................................................................... 163 3. Preemption of Common Law Copyright ................. 164 4. Form alities ............................................................... 164 5. Copyrightable Subject Matter ................................. 166 6. Exclusive Rights and Limitations Upon SuchR ights ................................................................... 166 7. Ownership of Copyright .......................................... 169 8. Compulsory Licenses .............................................. 169 9. Infringement, Remedies and Penalties .................... 170 F. International Law and Amendments to Copyright Act of 19 7 6 ...................................................................................17 1 1. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 19 8 8 ........................................................................17 1 2. Uruguay Round Agreement Act .............................. 172 G F air U se ............................................................................... 174 H. Electronic Rights: The New Frontier ................................. 180 1. Introduction ............................................................. 180 2. Technological Matters and Definition of Terms ...... 181 3. Copyright Reform: A Review of Recent History .... 185 a. The Problem ....................................................... 185 b. Early Congressional Reform: National Commission on Ne Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works ............ 188 c. Executive Efforts at Reform: Information Infrastructure Task Force ............................................................... 189 1. The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights ......................................... 190 2. The Conference on Fair Use ................. 191 d. From Free Use to Toll Road: Academic Perspectives on Reform .......................................... 193 e. Sum m ary ............................................................ 202 4. 1997-98: New Laws and Legislative Proposals ..... 204 a. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act .............. 204 1. O verview .............................................. 204 a. Copyright Protection and Management System s ...................................................... 205 b. Limitations on Liability for Copyright Infringement Relating to Material Online .208 c. Distance Education, Libraries and Archives, and Electronic Commerce ................................ 209 2. A nalysis ................................................ 210 1999] ART MUSEUMS & COPYRIGHT LAW a. Copyright Term Extension Act ........................... 212 b. Sum m ary ............................................................ 213 I. Summary and Significance for Museums ............................ 214 III. COPYRIGHT AND ART MUSEUMS: THE DIGITAL FR O N TIER .............................................................................. 217 A . The Problem ..................................................................... 217 B. Digitization and Availability of Collections ..................... 218 C. Digitization, Interpretation, and Management of C ollections ......................................................................... 227 D. Digitization and Generation of Funds to Preserve C ollections ......................................................................... 228 E. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................. 229 IV. CON CLU SION ........................................................................ 232 I. INTRODUCTION As art museums approach the twenty-first century, one of the most potentially explosive problems they confront pertains to copyright: that branch of the law that restricts the uses that one person or entity may make of another's creative work.' While a myriad of factors have, undoubtedly, combined to cause the explosion in copyright-related issues, and the significance of any one of these factors may be open to debate, one thing is indisputable. The rapid development and deployment of revolutionary new technologies is at the core of the explosion, in particular, technologies that enable reproduction of art work in digital form, and instantaneous transmission of digitized works As Marshall Leaffer points out: Although the term "copyright'" is highly descriptive in one sense, it is a misnomer in another. Today's copyright goes much farther in protecting works against copying in the strict sense of the word. Much of what we protect in copyright law today, such as performance rights, display rights, and derivative work rights, are more akin to rights to use a work rather than to copy it. MARHSHALL A. LEAFFER, UNDERSTANDING COPYRIGHT LAW 2 (2d ed. 1995) [hereinafter LEAFFER, UCL] (emphasis in original). See also Marshall A. Leaffer, Protecting Authors' Rights in a Digital Age, 27 U. TOL. L. REV. 1, 4 (Fall 1995) [hereinafter Leaffer, ProtectingAuthors 'Rights]. UCLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol 6:2 through the Internet2 and throughout the world.3 On the eve of the millennium, art museums are moving quickly into the future, digitizing images, developing products using digitized images, and posting digitized images on the Internet.4 Yet, they are doing so without necessarily understanding, or even considering, the potential ramifications of their actions as far as the law of copyright is concerned. Art museums have long found themselves entangled in nettlesome copyright issues, such as whether works in their collections are under copyright protection and, if so, who owns the copyrights in the works, whether reproductions of works on loan may be included in an exhibition catalogue, and whether photographs commissioned by the museum for use in promotional materials are copyrightable by the museum. 6 Likewise, museums have long found that they are both users of copyrighted works-such as when they wish to make reproductions of works to which they do not hold the copyright, and creators of copyrighted works-such as when their staff creates catalogues, gallery guides, or audio-visual materials.7 Museums have operated relatively smoothly in this environment, in some cases by obtaining copyright clearances, but, more typically, by either assuming that as nonprofit institutions their actions are insulated 2 The "Internet" is an international network of computer networks: a collection of several thousand local, regional, and global computer networks interconnected via the TCP/Internet Protocol suite. Religious Tech. Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Serv., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1365 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing DANIEL P. DERN, THE INTERNET GUIDE FOR NEW USERS 16 (1994). See also infra note 139. ' See Dhruv Khanna and Bruce M. Aitken, The Public's Need for More Affordable Bandwidth: The Case for Immediate Regulatory Action, 75 OR L. REV. 347, 351 (1996) ("The current digital revolution has been brought about by the convergence of a highly competitive [personal computer] industry and the Internet."). 4 See Kim L. Malone, Comment, Dithering Over Digitization: International Copyright and Licensing Agreements Between Museums, Artists, and New Media Publishers,5 IND. INT'L& COMP. L. REv. 2, 393 (1995). ' See Michael S. Shapiro, Not Control, Progress, MUSEUM NEWS, Sept./Oct. 1997, at 37, 38. 6 See Rhoda L. Berkowitz and Marshall A. Leaffer, Copyright and the Art Museum, 8 COLUM J. ART. & L. 249, 252-53 (1984). 7 Id. at 253. 1999] ART MUSEUMS & COPYRIGHT LAW from liability for copyright infringement under the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Illustrators' Partnership of America and Co-Chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Is One of Those Opponents
    I L L U S T R A T O R S ‘ P A R T N E R S H I P 8 4 5 M O R A I N E S T R E E T M A R S H F I E L D , M A S S A C H U S E T T S USA 0 2 0 5 0 t 7 8 1 - 8 3 7 - 9 1 5 2 w w w . i l l u s t r a t o r s p a r t n e r s h i p . o r g February 3, 2013 Maria Pallante Register of Copyrights US Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 RE: Notice of Inquiry, Copyright Office, Library of Congress Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (77 FR 64555) Comments of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America In its October 22, 2012 Notice of Inquiry, the Copyright Office has asked for comments from interested parties regarding “what has changed in the legal and business environments during the past four years that might be relevant to a resolution of the [orphan works] problem and what additional legislative, regulatory, or voluntary solutions deserve deliberation at this time.” As rightsholders, we welcome and appreciate the opportunity to comment. In the past, we have not opposed orphan works legislation in principle; but we have opposed legislation drafted so broadly that it would have permitted the widespread orphaning and infringement of copyright-protected art. In 2008, the Illustrators’ Partnership was joined by 84 other creators’ organizations in opposing that legislation; 167,000 letters were sent to members of Congress from our website.
    [Show full text]
  • Fetishizing Copies
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 2017 Fetishizing Copies Jessica Litman University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/108 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters Part of the Computer Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Publication Information & Recommended Citation Litman, Jessica D. "Fetishizing Copies." In Copyright in An Age of Limitations and Exceptions, edited by R. Okediji, 107-31. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 3 Fetishizing Copies Jessica Litman * Abstract Our copyright laws encourage authors to create new works and communicate them to the public, because we hope that people will read the books, listen to the music, see the art, watch the f lms, run the software, and build and inhabit the buildings. That is the way that copyright promotes the Progress of Science. Recently, that not-very- controversial principle has collided with copyright owners’ conviction that they should be able to control, or at least collect royalties from, all uses of their works. A particularly ill-considered manifestation of this conviction is what I have decided to call copy- fetish.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws for Intellectual Property in Cyberspace
    1 Conflict of Laws for Intellectual Property in Cyberspace François Dessemontet* INTRODUCTION * Professor, Universities of Lausanne and Fribourg. 2 The rules of conflict of laws are aimed at resolving conflicts between territorial laws, otherwise known as municipal laws. Although there are no separate national territories in cyberspace,1 territoriality remains in the 1 See Cass. com., March 7, 2000, D.2000 (No 20), 251-252; CA Paris, March 1, 2000, D.2000 (No 20), 251-252. For French private international law, see Chambre Nationale des Commissaires-priseurs c/ Nart SAS & Nart Inc., TGI Paris, May 3, 2000, available at http://www.legalis.net; UEJF & LICRA c/ Yahoo ! Inc & Yahoo France, Ordonnances de référé, TGI Paris, May 22, 2000 and November 20, 2000. See also M. R. Burnstein, Conflicts on the Net: Choice of Law in Transnational Cyberspace, 29 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 82 (1996); P.E. Geller, International Intellectual Property, Conflicts of Laws and Internet Remedies, EIPR 2000.125; L. LESSIG, CODE AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE 42-60 (Cambridge 1999). 3 organization of the courts (with a few exceptions, such as the Panels adjudicating domain name disputes under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) Policy or the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Dispute Resolution Body).2 Therefore, in most areas of intellectual property, conflict of jurisdiction remains a significant issue. This has prompted efforts towards the creation of a single patent court for all of Europe. However, beyond jurisdictional questions, the harmonization of intellectual property law is not a current endeavor. The Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”)3 embodies only a minimum of 2 With regards to ICANN, see the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, available at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm; the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, available at http://www.arbiter.wipo.int/domains/rules/supplemental.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Copyr1ght.S
    SIXTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYR1GHT.S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1966 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IL.C. Card No. 10-36017 This report is reprinted from the Annual Report of the Libdnof Congreee for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT OFFICE ............................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ......................... 2 Official publications .............................. 4 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress ................ 4 Administrative Developments ........................... 4 Problems of Registrability ........................... 5 Organizational Problems ............................ 5 Notices of Intention To Use ...................... : ... 5 Legislative Developments ............................ 6 Judicial Developments ..............................8 Performing Rights and Community Antenna Systems ............... 8 Rights of Exhibition and Copying ....................... 10 Author's "Moral Right" ........................... 11 Subject Matter of Copyright ......................... 13 Publication ................................. 16 Notice of Copyright ............................. 17 Copyright Registration ............................ 19 Ownership. Assignment. and Renewal of Copyright ............... 21 Infringement and Remedies .........................23 Other Judicial Developments .........................26 International Developments .......................... 28 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United States as of December
    [Show full text]
  • Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law
    EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAW Thesis submitted to Cochiin Uniiversiity of Sciience and Technollogy for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Faculty of Law By SALEENA K. B Under the guidance of Prof. Dr. N. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN (Director, IUCIPRS, CUSAT) SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COCHIN-682 022 2011 School of Legal Studies Cochin University of Science and Technology Kochi – 682 022, Kerala, India Ph: 91-484-2862487 (O), 2577542 (R) Prof. Dr. N. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN Fax: 91-484-2575463(Direct), 2577595 Professor HRD Chair on IPR E-mail:[email protected] ; [email protected] This is to certify that this thesis entitled “Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law” submitted by Ms. Saleena K.B for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, is to the best of my knowledge, the record of bonafide research carried out under my guidance and supervision from 13.09.2006 at School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology. This thesis or any part thereof has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree. Cochin Dr. N. S. Gopalakrishnan 19/10/2011 (Research Guide) This is to certify that the important research findings included in the thesis entitled “Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law” have been presented in a research seminar at School of legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and technology on 2nd May 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: the Protection of Electronic Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 18, Issue 4 1994 Article 9 Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention Robert A. Cinque∗ ∗ Copyright c 1994 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention Robert A. Cinque Abstract This Note discusses the prevalence of copywrited material on the internet, and the increasing access to said material. The Berne Convention is the leading international agreement to protect this type of material, though its reach and efficacy are limited. Provisions of the Convention are not stringently enforced. The Note explores the costs and benefits of enforcement, and potential protocols or policies to be adopted. NOTES MAKING CYBERSPACE SAFE FOR COPYRIGHT: THE PROTECTION OF ELECTRONIC WORKS IN A PROTOCOL TO THE BERNE CONVENTION Robert A. Cinque* It is... in the nature of things that the work of man's genius, once it has seen the light, can no longer be restricted to one country and to one nationality. That is why... the imperative necessity has been shown of protecting [authors' rights] in international relations.** INTRODUCTION Telecommunications1 and the "information superhighway"' facilitate instantaneous mobility of literary and artistic works in the form of text, video, and audio recordings.' With the click of a mouse or the tap of a key, virtually anyone with a computer and a telephone can obtain vast quantities of information from almost anywhere on the globe.' These conditions pose a * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress
    ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT TO CONGRESS March 2020 * * * UNITED STATES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR IPEC ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT TO CONGRESS: This report is submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §8114. During the past three years, President Trump and his Administration have worked to promote strong intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, both domestically and abroad. As part of an integrated approach, the Trump Administration views our intellectual property strategy, policy and enforcement efforts, together, as key to helping secure the future of our innovative economy and to maintaining our competitive advantage. The Trump Administration’s Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress, developed by the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, brings together the combined and coordinated efforts of the White House, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, Defense, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Copyright Office. This report was originally mandated to be submitted by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator over a decade ago by the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, and builds upon that framework to provide an overview of the Trump Administration’s intellectual property enforcement strategy and policy efforts. For the United States’ approach to intellectual property and innovation policy to be successful, it must continue to be a combined effort that includes all branches of government, the private sector, and our international partners. The Trump Administration continues to build on past strategic efforts in all areas of intellectual property policy, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, both domestically and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Application to Other Countries) Order 2013
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). UK Statutory Instruments are not carried in their revised form on this site. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2013 No. 536 COPYRIGHT RIGHTS IN PERFORMANCES The Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) Order 2013 Made - - - - 13th March 2013 Laid before Parliament 15th March 2013 Coming into force - - 6th April 2013 Her Majesty is satisfied, to the extent this Order relates to a country which is neither a Convention country nor another member State of the European Union, that provision has been or will be made under the law of that country, giving adequate protection to the owners of copyright in respect of works under Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988(1) and to the owners of rights in respect of British performances. Accordingly, Her Majesty, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by sections 159 and 208 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988(2) and by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(3), makes the following Order: Introductory 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) Order 2013 and shall come into force on 6th April 2013. (2) In this Order— “Act” means the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; “Berne Convention” means the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works adopted in Berne in 1886 and its revisions(4); “first published” has the meaning ascribed to it by section 155(3) of the Act; “Part I” means Part I of the Act (copyright); (1) 1988 c.48.
    [Show full text]
  • Journey's End of the Public Domain
    JOURNEY’S END OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND THE CONTROVERSY OVER OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN LITERATURE Kasha Caprata Honors Senior Thesis Rocky Mountain College Spring 2015 JOURNEY’S END OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND THE CONTROVERSY OVER OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN LITERATURE by Kasha Caprata __________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Rocky Mountain College __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts in History JOURNEY’S END OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND THE CONTROVERSY OVER OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN LITERATURE Copyright 2015 Kasha Caprata All Rights Reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ........................................... 4 THE EMERGENCE OF COPYRIGHT LAW AS A MARKER OF OWNERSHIP .................. 9 LEGAL RATIONALE FOR THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ............................................................ 10 THE MAJOR CHANGES TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ..................................... 13 The Copyright Act of 1790 ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Risks of Copyright Infringement on the Internet: a Practitioner's Guide, 33 U.S.F
    +(,121/,1( Citation: David N. Weiskopf, The Risks of Copyright Infringement on the Internet: A Practitioner's Guide, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1, 58 (1998) Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Wed Oct 25 18:39:57 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device Articles The Risks of Copyright Infringement on the Internet: A Practitioner's Guide By DAVID N. WEISKOPF* EVERY ATTORNEY SHOULD appreciate the importance of copyright law to their clients. Because copyrighted works can be easily uploaded to the Internet, any party owning copyrights should understand their rights against unauthorized use of those works on the Internet. Additionally, par- ties who maintain operations on the Internet should be informed of the risks of liability for copyright infringement for maintaining a particular type of Internet operation. This article is intended to aid the practitioner in evaluating the effect of current and likely future copyright law on the risks of copyright infringe- ment for Internet Service Providers, Bulletin Board Operators and Web site operators. The article evaluates the current state of copyright law as applied to the Internet and the difficulties that courts have experienced in applying traditional theories of copyright infringement to the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Copyright
    Copyright 4 Copyright 5 A Subject Maer ........................ 5 Copyright Act § 102(a) .............. 5 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. ........................ 6 1 Creativity: How Much Is a Modicum? . 6 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a) ................ 6 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. ........................ 7 Arrows Problem .................. 11 Baseball Card Price Report Problem ...... 11 2 Aesthetic Nondiscrimination . 11 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. ..... 11 Copyright Compendium § 310 ......... 13 Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater 14 Belcher v. Tarbox .................. 15 3 Idea and Expression . 15 Copyright Act § 102(b) .............. 15 Blehm v. Jacobs ................... 15 Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc. ........... 22 Hula Problem ................... 22 Baker v. Selden ................... 23 Bikram’s Yoga College of India v. Evolation Yoga . 25 Concrete Machinery Co. v. Classic Lawn Orna- ments ...................... 29 Cooking for Kids Problem ............ 29 B Ownership .......................... 30 Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. ..... 30 1 Authorship ....................... 30 Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony ..... 30 Monkey Selfie Problem .............. 32 Copyright Act § 105 ................ 32 2 Collaborations ..................... 32 Copyright Act §§ 201, 202 ............ 32 Thomson v. Larson ................. 33 Greene v. Ablon ................... 38 COPYRIGHT 2 Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid .. 39 Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide,
    [Show full text]